Large Scales & Chaotic Behaviour

[CraigS]

Ever read something that sticks in your mind and you can't get rid of it ?
Well, this is mine for the week … I've been pondering this one for some time now. (I warn most .. this is a bit of a brain-bender and it is purely theory-related).

It all started with this article:

Researchers show that the big bang was followed by chaos

Its a difficult article to understand, but basically some theoretical researchers have demonstrated mathematically, that highly chaotic behaviour immediately following the big bang is a perfectly valid assumption. The term 'chaos' is used in the mathematical theoretical sense ala Chaos Theory.

The present-day universe is expanding and does so in all directions, Motter explained, leading to red shift of distant light sources in all three dimensions -- the optical analog of the low pitch in a moving siren. The early universe, on the other hand, expanded in only two dimensions and contracted in the third dimension.

Translated loosely, that means that mathematically, they have shown that initially after the Big Bang, the Universe wobbled like a blob of jelly … the top got short while the sides blew out, then the sides contracted and the top balloned, etc.' That would seem to be obvious but, so what ?, what does this mean ? why is it important ?

That's where it starts to get interesting .. apparently, for 22 years the 'chaos' premise has not been obvious, nor agreed (for sound General Relativistic reasons). So, now that it is clear, what does this mean ?

I think what this 'discovery' means is that cosmological evolution models, (post Big Bang), now have been given a firm foothold to go forward and fill in the details of how Large Scale Structure, (galaxies, super galaxies and upwards), evolved to where it is today. I also think that they can now start to more firmly relate things like present day Sky Surveys and mappings, to the WMAP CMBR data, and begin to explain with firm foundations, why large scale structures are where they are today, along with their general shapes.

Also, it shows that the common view that closer to, or at the time of Big Bang, things were too hot and chaotic for present day Physics to hold, is not necessarily so. There may be some present day things, like mathematically describable chaotic behaviour, which are now shown to be perfectly valid at the very outset of the Universe, despite the unimaginable conditions at that time.

If my thinking is correct on this, this is a major step forward and shouldn't go unrecognised.

Comments/feedback welcome.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Another thing to notice about this is that from history, whenever major streams of Science come together, (in this case Chaos theory and Cosmology), big things have usually resulted.

This one may, or may not be, one of those big things … but it is certainly looking promising.

Cheers

[avandonk]

The usual thing that happens with so called Chaos theory is that for non linear systems oscillations will spontaneously surface as quasi stable complicated states.

Bert

[CraigS]

Hi Bert;

Ok .. I'll admit right upfront, that I'm pushing my limits on this topic.

From reading the article, these guys seem to be saying:

"Technically, we have established the conditions under which the indicators of chaos are relativistic invariants," Motter said. "Our mathematical characterization also explains existing controversial results. They were generated by singularities induced by the choice of the time coordinate, which are not present for physically admissible observables."

From this, should one conclude that they have given Chaos Theory in Cosmology the 'green' light, in so far as to explain a possible initial behaviour state of the universe, thereby dissolving previous barriers?

Wiki also says:

Recently, another field, called relativistic chaos has emerged to describe systems that follow the laws of general relativity.
The motion of N stars in response to their self-gravity (the gravitational N-body problem) is generically chaotic.

I'll now be completely honest in asking a question for which I have no clue as to what the answer might be (and I'm not even sure I'll understand the answer to it):
Would the "non linear systems oscillations spontaneously surfac(ing) as quasi stable complicated states" prevent the application of Chaos Theory contributing to the theoretical explanation of the Universe's initial states, (post Big Bang), and possibility also contributing to the explanation of parts of post BB evolution ?

Cheers & Thanks for the feedback.

[avandonk]

OK Craig it is quite simple. We can mathematically define and predict all the variables with a single proton and a single electron. After this we have the multi body problem.

We cannot mathematically define the quantum states of a Hydrogen Molecule to the same exactitude quantitively.

And then we think we can predict the behaviour of the Universe!

It gets worse as we can barely get the evidence to fit our pathetic theories.

We scientists are well aware of the limitations of our knowledge.

The turkeys who spout fundie drivel are not even aware of their own ignorance.

At least we are further than these morons as we at least still have questions not simple answers for simple folks.

It gets better though as we are on the cusp of understanding our own biology. It is not about the human genome it is about the living dynamic interactions of molecules that make us all.

Do you really think that an essential molecule once produced within a cell just randomly drifts to where it is needed? We do not know how, yet!




Bert

[CraigS]

Ok. I can see what you're saying.

Don't small steps take us part of the way towards an increased understanding of complex systems ?

Isn't the attempt worthwhile ? (Even if it still results in ignorance ?)

We're all "turkeys who spout fundie drivel" in some way, shape or form sometimes. Are you suggesting we should stay that way and give up the chase ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

To make it very clear the turkeys who spout fundie drivel are the faith based morons.

At what point in human knowledge should we stop?

Cave dwellers? A myth. Stone age? Bronze age? Iron age?

We now have the tools to really make a difference.

Bert

[CraigS]

Ok. I misunderstood where you were coming from for a while.

So "non linear systems oscillations spontaneously surfac(ing) as quasi stable complicated states" is just another hurdle, huh ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

Forget about the original meaning of the word chaos. All that Chaos Theory is that complexity can arise from very simple dynamic systems. Nature has used fractal theory to then propagate even more complex systems. Do you really think that the structure of your lungs are encoded in your DNA as a one to one map? It is a cellular based algorithm blind to its ultimate structure but results in complexity far in excess of the simple algorithm.

Bert

[CraigS]

I've read up a bit on Chaos Theory, Complexity, Fractals and Mandelbrot sets etc. I was quite excited about it all, at the time.

Interestingly, I've forgotten a lot about it because I almost never see any of it put to practical use … perhaps its just the friends I keep or something ??

So, I've always tried to convince others who are passionate about it, that nature isn't aware of the algorithms it runs, which result in fractals, and complexity. It is man who has given rise to the algorithms that describe what those critters are up to.

At last we're in agreement, Bert. (I think).

Cheers

[CraigS]

Oh yes …

I've also read "The God Delusion". I started on "The Blind Watchmaker" but I found that my interest disappeared pretty close to the end of the second chapter.

I find it it 'trying' to maintain an interest in something that's abundantly evident.

I do feel however, that Richard Dawkins is a scientist who has unfortunately come very close to turning evolution-by-natural-selection into a religion. He is one scientist who I believe, 'argues religiously'.

Perhaps it's just Newton's Third in action.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Oh yes …

I've also read "The God Delusion". I started on "The Blind Watchmaker" but I found that my interest disappeared pretty close to the end of the second chapter.

I find it it 'trying' to maintain an interest in something that's abundantly evident.

I do feel however, that Richard Dawkins is a scientist who has unfortunately come very close to turning evolution-by-natural-selection into a religion. He is one scientist who I believe, 'argues religiously'.

Perhaps it's just Newton's Third in action.

Cheers

I wonder how Dawkins would react if he was invited to join the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Many brilliant minds, your master Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking are members. A host of atheists and Nobel prize winners all appointed by the Pope. Sounds like a paradox.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifi...my_of_Sciences

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I wonder how Dawkins would react if he was invited to join the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Many brilliant minds, your master Ed Witten and Stephen Hawking are members. A host of atheists and Nobel prize winners all appointed by the Pope. Sounds like a paradox.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifi...my_of_Sciences

Steven

Very interesting … I didn't know this.

Didn't work out too well for Galileo (who now appears to be a founding leader ?).

I notice Georges Lemaitre is there as well.

'Twould be awesome to see Dawkins there !
I wonder why he isn't ?

Thanks for that. Very interesting.

Whaddya say, Bert ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Very interesting … I didn't know this.

Didn't work out too well for Galileo (who now appears to be a founding leader ?).

I notice Georges Lemaitre is there as well.

'Twould be awesome to see Dawkins there !
I wonder why he isn't ?

I imagine the potential of biting the hand that feeds it could be a major factor, or Dawkins simply doesn't make the grade.

Steven

[avandonk]

The Jesuits have known for centuries that the Bible is at best allegorical and at worst simple stories for simple folk. It is quite simple, a moral compass should not impinge on science.

If Dawkins sounds exasperated or religious it is because most of the time he is interviewed by ignorant fools or interviewers posing as religious believers using every debating trick in the book to undermine his rational message.

Science is not in the business of undermining any religious faith. Conflict occurs when some humans use faith as a control mechanism on other humans citing pseudoscience to prove the existence of the god of choice. They then have a conflict of interest when science points out their ideas are merely delusions used to inflict control on others.

The solution used to be burning at the stake for the heretic. Now it is ridicule infront of an audience that barely knows what day it is.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Conflict occurs when some humans use faith as a control mechanism on other humans. They then have a conflict of interest when science points out their ideas are merely delusions used to inflict control on others.

Bert

Science can be used, (& is used) in the same way.

People are people, regardless of which pigeon hole we put them in.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The Jesuits have known for centuries that the Bible is at best allegorical and at worst simple stories for simple folk. It is quite simple, a moral compass should not impinge on science.

If Dawkins sounds exasperated or religious it is because most of the time he is interviewed by ignorant fools or interviewers posing as religious believers using every debating trick in the book to undermine his rational message.

Science is not in the business of undermining any religious faith. Conflict occurs when some humans use faith as a control mechanism on other humans citing pseudoscience to prove the existence of the god of choice. They then have a conflict of interest when science points out their ideas are merely delusions used to inflict control on others.

The solution used to be burning at the stake for the heretic. Now it is ridicule infront of an audience that barely knows what day it is.

Bert

Couldn't have put it better myself

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Science can be used, (& is used) in the same way.

People are people, regardless of which pigeon hole we put them in.

Cheers

No you are totally wrong. Humans will always cheat other humans whether they use delusions or concrete scientific knowledge. It does not matter to the perpetrators.

The only reason there is so much fear in fundie land of scientific knowledge as it can completely undermine the drivel that is and has been used to make other people behave like docile serfs.

All Dawkins and many others including myself are pointing out is that the Universe is far more complex than we can even imagine and we have the ability to understand how it ticks.

Have a look at the moron O'Reilly in this lot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX91G_nXGH4


Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

No you are totally wrong. Humans will always cheat other humans whether they use delusions or concrete scientific knowledge. It does not matter to the perpetrators.

I agree (sort of) with the second part of what you say. I say 'sort of' because I don't see humans always doing this. (I don't think I'm wrong either, because I think we're agreeing in principle).

The only reason there is so much fear in fundie land of scientific knowledge as it can completely undermine the drivel that is and has been used to make other people behave like docile serfs.

A bit generalised here. Like the Pope doesn't seem to fear science .. he actually sponsors it (from Steven's post).

All Dawkins and many others including myself are pointing out is that the Universe is far more complex than we can even imagine and we have the ability to understand how it ticks.

This is what I get from him, too. Many others don't, though .. as you point out. I will not call those people 'ignorant fools', however. People are always better than that label.

Have a look at the moron Hannity in this lot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX91G_nXGH4

Will do - later. Gotta go now.

Cheers & Rgds

[renormalised (Carl)]

"Oh Really" is a dope and a loud mouth opinionated fool. The number of times he's put if foot in his mouth is incalculable. This video is just another example.